As respects the question on the Quintessential Dwarf, the response was that D (a convoluted bit of text with lots of "holes" that only includes the concepts obviously pulled directly from the SRD) is the way to read the OGC declaration. He did make a comment about option C (the Prerequisites and Benefits section of the Feat) that I think is worth re-printing.
"You would likely get away with this whatever the OGC declaration - there are only so many ways you can say BAB 5+."
With respect to the question on the Quintessential Wizard (the Arcane Nexus) rules, the response was "B" - "some of the text in the section" with a comment to the effect that by referring to the example of the Dwarf Feat above and what was considered "rules-related" content to determine the difference between rules-related material and other material.
The example from Encyclopedia Arcane - Elementalism was not definitively answered in terms of my original three answers, though further discussion yielded an answer - however, I have been asked not to air that entire discussion and so I won't.
Again, I don't want to put words into Matt's mouth, so I'll let him confirm this, but based on our conversations, here is my understanding of how Mongoose interprets their OGC designation:
Mongoose interprets their OGC designation by a fairly strict reading, but as a matter of practicality, not the strictest possible reading. Any text that directly relates to skill checks, attack rolls, bonuses, mechanical benefits granted by Feats, and so forth is considered Open Game Content, including as a matter of practicality any "extra" words in the text that are necessary to convey the intent of the mechanics in the English language but cannot be conclusively proven to be directly derived/quoted from the SRD. This is slightly more liberal than the "strictest reading" which cuts out a word here and a word there (again, compare C and D on the Quintessential Dwarf Feat example) and is done as a concession to practicality (I base this on the comment that "there are only so many ways you can say BAB 5+").
Now, Mongoose has the option to open more material after the fact should they so choose (effectively issuing "erratta" (sp?) to the Open Game Content designation), and my understanding is that in general, they have no qualms about doing so, provided they are asked first. This should come as a surprise to no one - and I doubt there are grounds for complaint on that count, as nobody seemed upset when the OGC designation for Ultimate Feats was erratta'd (sp?) to be 100% OGC last week on this very mailing list. In general, my experience is that they are quite willing to open material when asked - but that they do want to be asked. The question of "why not just open up the content in the first place?" is one that could be asked of any publisher's material. I think we'll all agree that everyone here has the right to open as much - or as little - as they want (subject to the strictures of the provisions in the OGL and/or d20STL). Whether or not it's "good form" or "polite" is of course, immaterial - the right exists. I think my own views on what is "good form" are well-known by now. ;-)
I have not gone over any Mongoose Product with a fine-toothed comb with the strict definition listed above to check on whether the strict definition above meets the 5% OGC requirement - and have no desire to do so (nor the requisite free time), but for me the question of "exactly what is OGC" has been more or less put to rest. I would presume that they do, though I cannot empirically prove either way. It's an academic exercise for the reader, I suppose... my question was not about 5% but about clarifying the definition and I don't want to get sidetracked. Anything that is obviously and directly a quote from the SRD or uses termed contained in the SRD is Open Game Content. Anything that deals directly with "rules" (i.e., rolls, bonuses, possible character actions, and/or character conditions), whether directly quoted from the SRD or not, is also Open Game Content. Anything else (sometims including stuff in the same sentence as OGC) is considered "closed." Whether or not this designation would pass legal muster as regards "derivative works" is not for me to say as I am not well-enough versed in copyright law to make a judgement. One presumes their counsel has informed them that it will pass legal muster. However, these two areas - the 5% rule and the "derivative works" area are the only areas that are now unclear to me - and derivative works is, at least as far as I can tell, an area of special "unclarity" (if such a word can be used) in copyright law in general anyway.
Is it as generous a designation as I would like? Of course not (I am in favor of "all text is open except the names X, Y, and Z"). Is it clear? With the understanding that "rules-related content" essentially refers to rolls, bonuses, possible character actions, and/or character conditions (i.e., if D&D were a computer game, anything that could be reduced to "code" and have a direct influence on character capabilities and/or modify the efficacy of such), I think the answer is "yes." Is it a rather "snaggy" designation (i.e., difficult to lift sentences or paragraphs in copy/paste)? Yes (I believe by design). Is it at least as clear as copyright law with respect to derivative works? I think so.
The unclarity of the designation comes in the interpretation "rules-related content" and once that interpretation is specified, the designation becomes more or less clear. That Mongoose is working on a re-write of their designation leads me to believe the best course is prudence - rather than jumping on them for a designation that some of us find unclear due to a term we find unclear (one of the wonderful things about language is that something that seems crystal-clear to one person may not seem crystal-clear to someone else - I think this is what happened with "Rules-Related;" Mongoose understood it because they had developed it and therefore felt it was clear, while others who had not been privy to the development process did not understand it).
Regardless, given that we have been told by Mongoose that a re-write of their OGC Designation is forthcoming, I think it is best to reserve judgement until the new designation is "debuted." One hopes that it will effectively be issued as "errata to existing products" as well as used "going forward" to allay concerns about any particular product that may have been published under the old designation.
Finally, I apologize for the delay in posting this - I know I said I would publish this earlier, but I had a very busy weekend with my two wonderful kids (a 2-yr old and a 2-wk old) so I didn't get a chance to get this all prettied up for posting until now.
Let's just let this horse lie until we see the new horse. ;-)
And any of you with the patience to read all of this really impress me. I do ramble, don't I?
--The Sigil
-----ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS-----
The first is from the Quintessential Dwarf book; the OGC designation in the Quint. Dwarf reads, "All game mechanics and statistics derivative of Open Game Content and the System Reference Document are to be considered Open Gaming Content."
On Page 40, we have the following text:
"Rat Hacker (General) You are skilled at fighting creatures smaller than yourself. While others may stumble around trying to hit the wee creatures, you know just how to hit them where it hurts while avoiding their puny attacks. Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +5. Benefit: When you are fighting creatures one size category smaller than yourself, they lose any benefits to Armour Class or to their attack rolls based on their size. Normal: Smaller creatures normally gain a bonus to Armour Class and their attack rolls when battling larger foes."
Is the Open Game Content contained within the above quote (I am inserting
curly brackets to denote concepts but not actual text, i.e., {SOME FEAT
NAME} means that there is a concept of a feat name but I can't pick up the
actual text you used):A.) The entire text of the Feat including name? (By my reading of your OGC declaration, no.) "Rat Hacker (General) You are skilled at fighting creatures smaller than yourself. While others may stumble around trying to hit the wee creatures, you know just how to hit them where it hurts while avoiding their puny attacks. Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +5. Benefit: When you are fighting creatures one size category smaller than yourself, they lose any benefits to Armour Class or to their attack rolls based on their size. Normal: Smaller creatures normally gain a bonus to Armour Class and their attack rolls when battling larger foes."
B.) The entire text of the Feat sans name? (By my reading, no.)
"{SOME FEAT NAME}
You are skilled at fighting creatures smaller than yourself. While others
may stumble around trying to hit the wee creatures, you know just how to hit
them where it hurts while avoiding their puny attacks.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +5.
Benefit: When you are fighting creatures one size category smaller than
yourself, they lose any benefits to Armour Class or to their attack rolls
based on their size.
Normal: Smaller creatures normally gain a bonus to Armour Class and their
attack rolls when battling larger foes."C.) The entire text of the Feat sans name and description? (By my reading
the spirit of the OGC declaration, yes... but by the letter of the
declaration, no.)
"{SOME FEAT NAME}
{SOME DESCRIPTION ABOUT HOW YOU ARE ABLE TO ATTACK FOES SMALLER THAN
YOURSELF MORE EFFECTIVELY}
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +5.
Benefit: When you are fighting creatures one size category smaller than
yourself, they lose any benefits to Armour Class or to their attack rolls
based on their size.
Normal: Smaller creatures normally gain a bonus to Armour Class and their
attack rolls when battling larger foes."D.) A nasty and convoluted set of text? (By a literal reading of your OGC
declaration, yes.)
"{SOME FEAT NAME}
{SOME DESCRIPTION ABOUT HOW YOU ARE ABLE TO ATTACK FOES SMALLER THAN
YOURSELF MORE EFFECTIVELY}
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +5. (BAB is a term from the SRD and as such
is clearly a derivative. Similarly, the concept of Feat Prerequisites is in
the SRD and therefore a derivative).
Benefit: {} one size category smaller than yourself, {} benefits to Armour
Class or to their attack rolls based on their size. (Relative size and
AC/attack bonuses are in the SRD. Negating these bonuses is IMO a
derivative work but could be argued not to be).
Normal: Smaller creatures normally gain a bonus to Armour Class and their
attack rolls when battling larger foes." (Essentially quoted from the SRD)E.) Only the rules concept but NONE of the text? (As you have suggested in
some of your posts here)
{The concept of removing the advantages built into the d20 system based upon
size}F.) None of the above?
As a second example, take the "Arcane Nexus" section from the Quintessential Wizard (Which I do not have in front of me right now).
A.) Is the entire text of that section OGC (it is rules-related) - i.e., if I wanted to cut/paste the text of that section into my own book, could I do so?
B.) Is some of the text of that section OGC? If so, how do I tell the difference?
C.) Is none of that text OGC - i.e., if I wanted to include the concept of an Arcane Nexus in a book, would I have to re-write it from the ground up?
As a third example, take Encyclopedia Arcane - Elementalism, pages 10-16, starting with the "Five Circles" section header and ending just prior to the "Elemental School Spells" header (obviously, I don't want to type all this out).
A.) Is all of the text on these pages OGC - i.e., can I copy/paste it?
B.) Is all of the text on the pages OGC except (1) the paragraphs that are purely descriptive text; for instance, the paragraph following the prerequisites list for a Circle, e.g., "An Apprentice learns... He gains the following abilities:" and (2) the "flavor text" (stuff in gray boxes such as at the bottom of page 13)?
C.) Only those words that come directly from the SRD, e.g., "Knowledge (arcana): 5 ranks Knowledge (nature): 5 ranks" from the 1st Circle entry and the names of SRD spells on the spell lists appearing on pp. 14-15?
D.) None of the above?
Also, what portions of the spells introduced in Elementalism are OGC? Is there any of the spell text that can be cut/pasted?
I am just trying to understand how Mongoose interprets these particular issues.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
